Agent Intellect & Possible Intellect

The following is a response to a young friend Genna on a point of philosphy regarding the agent and possible intellect.

Dear Genna,

It has been some time since I last made either Aristotle or Aquinas my regular reading, but I will try to offer a few remarks. I would first like to clarify some of the terminology. You write, “In the beginning, there was a void.” Certainly I recognize a poetic license in many biblical expressions; I know that this word is sometimes used for the state of things prior to creation, but it implies “something” even if only empty space. Did Aquinas use it? The Church would interpret is as utter nothingness— no matter and nothing of its other self, energy. Aristotle would probably not have spoken of a void in that he believed that immortal mind had an existence apart from its particular incarnations in human beings. You cite the words from Genesis, and here it is God speaking, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” When doing catechesis I make a distinction between “image” and “likeness”. The former refers to that element of soul that your paper discusses; the latter, to that state of preternatural justification and holiness that was lost by original sin and only restored by Jesus Christ. However, not all authorities are unanimous or careful in making this distinction. I would not make a big deal about it. Again, does Aquinas see the terms as equivocal? It seems that you do when you raise your two questions preferring the word “likeness” to “image”.

The two questions you ask:

1. If human beings are made in the “likeness” (image) of God, what exactly does mankind share with him?

Your paper does a good job of showing how, using Aristotle, Aquinas posits the “agent intellect” as that which in man is imaged after God.

2. Supposing that a likeness (image) does exist between God and man: how could each individual possibly be unique?

I am not as clear in your paper about the element of uniqueness. Maybe it needs some amplification?

Regarding the differences between one soul and another, Aquinas points to the fact that while there is a similarity of essences, a soul is created immediately by God with the existence of a body. The principle of individuation comes into play. The matter (body) gives the soul its own unique natural qualities. Other than material differentiation, another distinction that the souls of men, while similar, are different, is that each person refers to himself as “I” and not “we”. There is no group consciousness. We see ourselves as connected, but we also consider ourselves as individuals.

Quoting Aquinas, “…If the agent intellect is something belonging to the soul, as one of its powers, we are bound to say that there are as many agent intellects as there are souls, which are multiplied according to the number of men…,” you write, “Since it is not a separate substance existing outside of man but a power derived from a superior and separate substance, the agent intellect cannot be the same in all.” You are essentially saying, as I did, that the body informs the agent intellect: “Since the senses by which phantasms are derived do inherently belong to each man as an individual, the agent intellect will derive everything uniquely in each individual.” There have been experiments in this area too. One woman had brain damage and could smell colors. The way her senses worked were different from other people. While there is a general uniformity, they are not absolutely the same. Some people can hear all the intricate sounds of a musical piece, others only the louder parts and more decisive notes. Some see colors more brilliantly and others might fail to see some colors at all or see them as something else, as with color blindness. The material internal senses may also be different. What is there about the brain that would fashion one man as an Einstein or a Mozart and another as an ignorant woman on Welfare or even a career employee at Curves?

You also wrote that “God existed alone,” and while this is true, we know that in God there is no real distinction between his essence and existence. Yes, God exists, but he does so in an absolute and infinite fashion. He is the ground of our existence. When God made us in his image, he fashioned us according to himself and suddenly there existed in material creation, a creature that could respond rationally to God with understanding, thankful praise, and faithful love. The properties of soul, knowing and loving, had been imprinted upon us so that, even in our poverty, we might respond to God in kind— a whole level above the plants and animals over which we had been placed as stewards. There is that element of mind or soul that is immortal, and yet it possesses an existential dependence, as does every created thing.

Pivotal to your paper, you define the “possible intellect” and the “agent intellect”. You write: “Using the medieval terms Aquinas uses, these are: (1) the possible intellect, which receives phantasms through the senses from particular sense-experiences; and (2) the agent intellect, which abstracts the universal form from the phantasms in the possible intellect.” This is clear and concise, very good! What we know in this life requires IMAGES [what you call Phantasms], the starting point for all knowledge. It is only when the soul is separated from the body at death that it no longer depends upon the senses and the imagination.

Man’s place in creation is unique. While plants have vegetative souls and animals have sensitive souls, men have rational souls. Here, as you deduced, is how humanity is made in the image of God. The human soul is the substantial form for human beings. Of course, a human person can no more be reduced to a soul than, as materialists would attempt, to define him solely as a mortal body. A person is the complete corporeal-spiritual composite. We can delineate them, but the complete person requires both elements. The body and soul should not be understood as two separate substances, but one. Aquinas, himself, while making every manner of distinction, would reject any kind of strict dualism. But here I depart from the topic of your paper.

Lacking any kind of inborn knowledge, the human intellectual soul must have, as you write, both the power of understanding and the power of sensing. The power of sensing cannot be exercised without the body. While the soul has the power of understanding, it is dependent on sense-knowledge. The fact that the human mind can conceive of that which is not material is proof that the soul itself transcends the restraints of matter. Self-consciousness is a chief characteristic of an immortal mind or soul.

Aquinas spells out the operation of the possible intellect:

1. phantasm (sensible form) perceived through particular senses
2. data is synthesized by a general sense
3. images are conserved by the imagination
4. facts are grasped by the appropriate power “vis cogitativa”
5. power of memory comes into play

It is after this process that the agent intellect gets involved. It is truly the power of understanding, that which we call rational or intellectual cognition. It is dependent on the possible intellect but is of a higher order.

While the senses grasp particular objects, the mind can extrapolate and comprehend universals. It can abstract the form of things; however, we should be quick to note, that unlike Plato and his world of forms, this does not mean that universal concepts have any independent life outside the mind. For instance, all men and women are particularized. We can extract a universal concept, but no such ideal or universal humanity actually exists.

You write that Aristotle is “adamant that the agent intellect is actuality or activity, while the phantasms in the possible intellect are potentiality.” Yes, you are grappling with how that which comes through the senses is extracted as a concept in the agent intellect. You continue: “This power of intellect, the agent intellect, shines on the phantasms in the possible intellect, and abstracts from these particulars to derive the universal forms of the intelligible species.” Again, yes, the active intellect “illumines” the sense image so that the formal elements and those in potency can be grasped. The potential universal element is abstracted and the “species impressa” is produced. The passive intellect reacts to this determination and results in the “species expressa” or the true universal concept. You write: “The senses are absolutely necessary for any kind of understanding of the world around oneself, for the human being is caught between the body and its senses and the immaterial intellect agent which has no organ.” Quite so, there is no storeroom with innate ideas. All concepts are derivative.

It is at this point that you address the question as to what is immortal and eternal. You echo Aquinas, asking “Does Aristotle mean the agent intellect, the possible intellect, or both?”

Obviously, everything is weighted toward the agent intellect as a higher power, but I suspect that Aquinas would argue for the immortality and unity of the complete human soul. He writes that "Since the agent intellect and the possible intellect are united to us as form, we must acknowledge that they pertain to the same essence of the soul" (SHORTER SUMMA, article 87). Thus, the whole intellect which is one with the soul endures. There are important differences between how Aquinas and Aristotle view the mind. Aristotle sees the mind as immortal and eternal; it exists both prior and subsequent to a union with the body. Thus, he would also make a distinction between the human psyche and the immortal mind. Aquinas sees the soul and its powers being immediately created with its infusion into a body. The soul does not pre-exist but it will outlive the body and will not be destroyed by God. While Aquinas as a Christian sees something of the image of God here; Aristotle as a pagan would claim that what we discern in men is no copy, but the immortal mind itself.

Aquinas’ explanation of the union between “the material and the immaterial in the intellect” is important because given a better understanding of the body, today, similar questions are being raised. What is the relationship between the soul and the senses and the “little grey cells” as the fictional Poirot liked to call them, the brain? Materialists would reduce the mind entirely to chemistry and electricity; arguing that self-consciousness is possible for computers and thinking meat. However, Aristotle, as you point out, saw cooperation between the material and the immaterial. You seek to delineate the highest element, that which is truly made in God’s image.

You write: “Because the intellectual soul is moveable and thus imperfect, Aquinas postulates that “above the intellectual soul of man we must needs suppose a superior intellect, from which the soul acquires the power of understanding. For what is such by participation, and what is moveable, and what is imperfect, always requires the pre-existence of something essentially such, immovable and perfect.” No doubt you also discern that something of this argumentation flows from his proofs, or rather, ways for the existence of God. God is the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover. All perfections reach in him their eminent degree and are shared with creation only in a finite and dependent manner. God is a perfect Spirit and our souls are fashioned in his image. He has no beginning and no end. We were created in time, but are promised an eternity beyond this world. In God there is no potency and so there can be no passive intellect. Everything is actualized in God. All universals and all particulars are known to him. You write: “This perfect intellect, Aquinas says, is often said to be the agent intellect. ‘But, even supposing the existence of such a separate agent intellect, it would still be necessary to assign to the human soul some power participating in the superior intellect…’ Quoting a passage of the Bible which shockingly parallels Aristotle, Aquinas finishes: ‘…the separate intellect…is God Himself, Who is the soul’s Creator…Therefore the human soul derives its intellectual light from Him, according to Ps. Iv. 7, The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us.’ Thus the intellect, in its imperfection, derives its light or agent intellect from the light of God Himself.” It will be argued that since the agent intellect in men is made in God’s image and derives its light from God, himself, that it must be immaterial and that which has no parts cannot break down, and does not die. The simpler something is— the more perfect it is. This is most true about God and it is so in its own fashion about the soul, although the human soul is dependent upon God for its existence and illumination.

You continue: “On account of this derived intellectual light, man is said to be made in the likeness of God. In human nature there is an uncomfortable marriage of divine intellect and crude bodily sensation.” Again, you are right on the money. However, not only are we speaking about a crude bodily sensation, but a body that can be faulty and even deceived. People can be diagnosed with disturbed minds, not because the intellect itself is defective but because the body itself is out of balance. Hallucinations can result from brain damage and drugs. People are born into the world mentally retarded. Others have defective senses. Can we even begin to imagine the challenge that Helen Keller’s agent intellect suffered to extrapolate enough sense-impressions to make any cognitive sense of things? Interesting sensory deprivation experiments have been conducted with people in flotation isolation tanks. Common reactions to extended stays in such a tank that deprives a person of most sense input are hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, anxiety, and depression, etc. Are you sure you do not want to go into biochemistry? Here is another instance of overlapping between science and philosophy.

You state that “With his way lit by the light of Divine Intellect, St. Thomas Aquinas, arguing from Aristotle, shows the way to understanding the relationship between God and man inherent in man’s ‘likeness’ of God.” I have limited my remarks to a strict appreciation of Aquinas and Aristotle. Certain modern Catholic philosophers and theologians (like Karl Rahner) might detour us into a discussion of the inner matrix of the mind itself and whether or not we know the things we sense or only the images in the mind that are given us by God. Jacques Maritain, an Existential Thomist, talks of a connatural knowledge that takes this notion of divine illumination a step further; it is not rational but works through the obscure affective inclinations, dispositions and mystical experience.

I do not know if my rambling thoughts will be of any help, but here they are. I liked your paper and it might be the kind of thing to show your parents who worry that philosophy might take you away from God and the faith they have given you. St. Thomas Aquinas baptized the thought of Aristotle and helps us all, not only to think clearly, but to maintain the priceless heritage of our faith. Philosophy, if studied correctly, makes the more full understanding of religion and theology possible.

Many blessings,
Father Joe

P.S. It might be easier to read my response if you print it. Peace!

What They Are Saying About Mary?

I remember being taught at university that the Gospels went through three stages of development:

(1) the actual historical event of Jesus;

(2) the oral tradition; and

(3) the written record (in the latter third of the first century).

I remember taking some exception to the professor when she said that because of this drawn out process the Gospels could not be taken literally or at face value. My traditional training in the undergraduate level had exposed me to the Church’s condemnations against Modernism and one of their errors was a denial of the true historicity of the Gospels. While the various writings of the New Testament reflected the various theologies of their human authors, and the faith communities out of which they arose, it was my conviction that as God’s inspired Word, they could be trusted, particularly since the entire Catholic Christian faith depended upon a reliable depiction of the Savior. In regard to the Virgin Mary, much has been made of her emphasis or absence in various New Testament writings. However, I would suggest that we must look at the focus of the various documents, remember that the Gospels and the faith are primarily based on the life of Jesus, and trust that even on the periphery; the Church has always shown Mary affection and invoked her intercession.

Yes, there seems some pluralism in the Scriptures about Mary, but I would hesitate to find discrepancy or tension. Paul never calls her by name. Luke offers the most highly developed view of Mary. He sees her as a disciple— as the ideal believer. The revisionists sometimes seem a bit upset by his strong depiction of Mary. They would argue that “critically” we should not seek to harmonize the Gospels, as if each Gospel must be understood in isolation from the rest. I must admit that I do not wholly trust their motives. They are correct, though, that the Gospels each present, as the center of interest, the figure of Jesus and what God has done to save us in Jesus Christ.

Paul tells us bluntly that Jesus is born of a woman and so he is truly human, rooted in the race of Adam and Eve. Remember here the Jewish law— anyone is a Jew if born of a Jewish mother. He is bonded to us in sharing our common humanity. For his immediate purposes of evangelization, Paul is not directly concerned about Mary, per se.

The critics argue that our first Gospel, Mark, gives us a negative view of Mary, at least in the context of Christ’s ministry. They contend that Mary does not seem to understand her Son and she is not counted among his disciples. Chapter three seems to depict Mary as an outsider, and the verdict is given in an initial misunderstanding that Jesus is acting “beside himself”:

Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. And when his friends heard it, they went out to seize him, for they said, “He is beside himself.” And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” . . . And his mother and his brethren came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brethren [and sisters] are outside, asking for you.” And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brethren?” And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Mark 3:20-22; 31-35)

The Pharisees plot against him and the scribes think he is possessed by Satan. Jesus responds by offering a rhetorical question, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” He answers, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” in other words, who live it out. This would become very important for the self-understanding of the early Church communities— the natural family is contrasted to the eschatological family.

Those considering Mark apart from Luke would still allow that the blood family of Jesus could and largely would become disciples, members of the family of faith. However, and here is where I take exception to their interpretation regarding Mary, these critics claim that at this point in the ministry of Jesus, she and the accompanying brethren were not disciples. While these critics contend that each Gospel must be considered as distinct from other writings, they actually give preference to Mark and construe a teaching moment as a rebuke. Often relegating the infancy narratives and the early expressions of faith from Mary to the level of fancy, they contend from the apparent confusion of his family and the later anxiety of Mary in Mark’s Gospel over what awaits her Son that there was an overall lack of faith and that this was probably true of the real-life event. Given that the event is embarrassing, the episode is certainly accurate enough. Why? Because in light of the resurrection, it is argued, it would not be likely that such a story would be invented later on.

Let us turn now to Acts 1:14. Awaiting the Holy Spirit are the eleven apostles, the special women mentioned in Scripture, and Mary and his brethren. Here we find the nucleus of the Church. In light of Mark, the critics would ask, if Mary had never become a believer, is it likely that any positive picture of her would be painted among the saints? She was an honored member of the early Apostolic Church. When the early Jerusalem faith community would come together to celebrate the meal that commemorated the death and resurrection of Christ, Mary would be honored as the Mother of the hero. The critics contend that over time her role in the community would influence their perception of her earlier role in salvation history. The Gospel of Mark was a recording an earlier memory.

Again, I have reservations about such a view. First, while most biblical authorities believe that Mark is the first Gospel composed, and admittedly the language is crude and terminology fairly simplistic, there are still some authorities who claim Matthew as the earliest and that Mark is a shorter reworking of the material. Second, there is nothing in chapter three that spells out the exclusion of Mary and the brethren from the circle of disciples. Who is to say that he is not merely expanding his family and alluding to the fact that Mary is more kindred to him by faith than by blood? Might one also argue that by expanding the family, he is making Mary not only his Mother, but the Mother of all who believe in him? This seems just as likely as a rebuke for ignorance, and if one allows impute from the other Gospels and the traditions of faith, it even becomes more likely.

Notice the Scripture citation here; I have rendered it just as one professor did, excluding intervening material that was deemed non-topical. However, let us look at what was removed:

And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “”How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods; unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.” (Mark 3:23-27)

A house divided cannot stand. Yes, he was talking about the kingdom, but one might also see a reference to his own earthly house. The promised Messiah is from the House of David, and the Scriptures denote Joseph as of this royal line and no doubt so was Mary since she belonged to the same tribe. Was there really dissension between Jesus and the rest of his family or just confusion and worry? I would suggest the latter. Indeed, the scene shows just how much Jesus was loved by Mary and his various brethren, probably cousins really.

There is also more that was left out of the quote:

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of a eternal sin” – for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Matt. 12:46-50)

I am left wondering if we do not see something here of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit from certain exegetes and theologians? There is no hint from these critics that the Holy Spirit has inspired his Word and that he has purposely given us four Gospels, Acts, Revelation and assorted epistles to give us the complete picture of Jesus. If God’s hand is involved with it all, how can we make arguments against Mary’s perpetual faith role based upon skimpy evidence in one Gospel?

Matthew offers a similar text, and when told that his Mother and brothers are asking to speak to him, Jesus stretches out his hand toward his disciples and says, “Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Again, there is no insult, no renunciation of his blood family. What we do see is that Jesus gives his disciples the same privileges and rights that he would give his Mother and brethren. His listeners have just as much right to his time and his words, perhaps even more so, given the brevity of mortal life and the urgency of the Gospel proclamation. What appears to be a negative context in Mark is removed. The contrast is not so hard. Matthew also includes infancy narratives, but the emphasis is upon Joseph, his royal line, the angelic reassurance to Joseph, the virginal conception of Jesus, and Joseph’s role as guardian to the Holy Family. After the three wise men depart, Joseph takes his family into Egypt, safe from the evil grasp of Herod.

Luke also offers us the same scene:

Then his mother and his brethren came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brethren are standing outside, desiring to see you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21)

The apparent contrast between those inside the family and those outside is mostly gone, and I would contend this simply clarifies what might have been misconstrued in older texts. If we argue that the text is merely cleaned up out of deference to Mary, rewriting the real historical record, then we would have to pit one Gospel against another as if the Scriptures could war with themselves. Seen as a whole, they compliment one another and give us the testimony that God has insured by his guiding Holy Spirit. It is fairly clear in Luke that Jesus’ Mother and brethren meet the criteria of discipleship. Mary’s Annunciation and her subsequent Magnificat demonstrate that she is the Woman of Faith. Mary is blessed by Jesus for hearing the Word of God and keeping it. Greater and prior to her physical motherhood, she was a spiritual Mother to our Lord. She had been prepared by God for this noble purpose. Her chief source of holiness is not merely her physical motherhood, but her hearing the Word and keeping it— literally allowing the Word to become the living fruit of her womb. Her physical motherhood is the singular realization and full expression of her spiritual motherhood in faith. In that sense, a distinction is made between Mary and other women.

Acts 1:14 gives us an important post-resurrection scene, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Mary is clearly a member of the early Church and here she is in common prayer with them. The revisionist scholars cannot accept that such might have been Mary’s status all along, and so they contend that this situation is retrojected into the infancy narrative. There is something cynical about this view. They claim this is why Mary gets the Annunciation scene and the interaction with angels. They reject the historicity of these important events. Is this approach not a form of atheism? They will not stop here in bankrupting the New Testament either. These critics admit that there is a post-resurrection kerygma where she gives herself to it, her “Fiat”! But, they claim is inserted to an earlier stage of the story, the conception of the Christ. They are hesitant to accept that she could have consistently been giving her very life to the proclamation of the Gospel. This means that they have to try to negate the Visitation in Luke, too. When she visits Elizabeth, she is shown to be literally proclaiming the Good News and she is declared blessed for her faith by kinswoman. Mary breaks into praise with her Magnificat. This Jewish-Christian hymn makes Mary a symbol in herself for others. We are given Mary as a prophet, announcing the Good News. It appears to the reader, and it was certainly the intent of the author, that Mary be shown as a disciple from the beginning to the end. Critics would contend there is retrogressing. I would want to take the texts at face value, as pertaining to actual events. Mary does indeed symbolize the person of faith— those who hear the Good News and keep it.

John gives us two significant scenes (neither where Mary is named) but she is identified as “the mother”. There is the Cana scene and here again the critics (should we call them Mary-bashers?) assert that there is evidence of an imperfect faith, less than discipleship. What many of us see is the intercessory role of Mary. Jesus seems sharp with her, although this is in part because of the Semitic language. Nevertheless, he turns water into wine at her behest. That is pretty impressive. At the cross she is clearly the woman of faith, present at the foundations of the Church with the disciple whom he loved. In contradiction, revisionists make much of the fact that while John places Mary as at the heart of the early Christian community, this emphasis is not seen in the Synoptic Gospels and they would contend that the question of her actual presence cannot be answered.

The Book of Revelation presents us with the woman giving birth to the Messiah and being attacked by a dragon. She ultimately stands triumphant. This originally signified the Cross, we are told.

Many contemporary exegetes and theologians insist that the canon was finally forced— now set side by side— into a conflated image, with one book deepening the other. The theological mind began to make a composite— harmonizing— for the trajectory of later centuries. Emphasis is placed upon Mary’s virginity, then the conception, then at birth and then even afterwards. She is also emphasized as the Mother of Jesus and all believers. A comparison is made with Eve. Eve was the cohort in sinning with the first Adam; she is the cohort in salvation with Christ, the new Adam.

Ultimately, the revisionists ask, what can we know historically? They answer, that there was a Mary of Nazareth and that there are four things minimally assured:

1. Jewish woman of first century (real) Miriam;

2. Mother of Jesus;

3. At least at start of his ministry she did not understand what Jesus was about (see the questioning in Luke at the scene where Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple); and

4. Believer in Post-Easter Community.

I would hesitate to give full credence to the third point. It may be that Mary did not know the details of what Jesus would do, but to say she knew nothing about his role and work would deny her own role as the perpetual woman of faith and disciple of her Son. Critics contend that what we see here fits the Vatican II terminology about Mary’s life as a journey of faith. But it could have been a different journey than the one they envision. Certain revisionists seek to deny the historicity of a whole list of mysteries, the sinlessness of Mary, her Annunciation, her perpetual virginity, and her past and present cooperation with her Son in his redemptive work. The same kind of minimalism is often used regarding Jesus as well, going so far as to theoretically posit two sons—the historical Jesus (real and human) and the Christ of faith (mythical and divine).

There are certain probabilities we can assert. Short in stature, she also probably had dark hair and eyes. No doubt, like other such women, she was centered on the home. It was a woman’s duty to raise and bear children. (Revisionists claiming that she and Joseph had other children contradict Church teaching.) She would certainly have had religious duties in the home (candles, prayers, teaching, etc.). Women of her time were not encouraged to study the Torah and such. Her chores would have included washing, cleaning, baking bread, fetching water, and so forth.

Regarding the timing of the Annunciation scene, we should remember that girls were not married until about 12 or 13 years old. A girl was betrothed at the onslaught of menstruation. Luke pictures her as intelligent (she thinks seriously about things) and is free. He says that “she pondered it,” the early events he relates. She comes across as a reflective woman.

Mary becomes physically pregnant and gives birth to Jesus. We can conclude that she no doubt nurtured and raised Jesus. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx wrote a book entitled, Mary, Mother of the Redemption and talks about the impression of love from both of Jesus’ parents. There was probably outreach to the poor in their village. They raised and exposed him to experience certain values. His first word was probably some variation of mamma. He was probably thinking of her when he told the parable of a woman searching for a lost coin. Good things happened in their home. Taking after Joseph, he probably supported her with carpentry. The impression is given that she is a widow, sometime after he was 12 years old. Brethren are mentioned, but there is nothing more about Joseph. It seems he must have died. When he began his public ministry, Jesus seems to abandon her, although this word from revisionists may be too loaded with negative meaning in this context. Certainly, she forfeits any financial support that might have come through him.

The political situation is tense. Mary probably had fears for him (and his New Way over the Torah). Revisionists sometimes claim that she was probably not at the Cross, but that she would at least come to know how he was executed as a common criminal. They would assert that she came to believe and to join the community of disciples. These critics contend that in the end, we get the picture of a woman with her own history and identity, herself having to grow in wisdom, age and grace.

I would take exception with much of this. I believe she was at the Cross and that her role as the Woman of Faith and the Immaculate Conception would have insured a constancy of faith in her Son. While she aged, she was always full of grace. I would also argue for a supernatural wisdom that would be hers as a gift to the New Eve; although as a simple woman she might not be privy to all the practical elements of divine providence. Her mother’s heart would seek to protect and care for her Son. I cannot acknowledge as authentic the whittled-away Mary that some critics would give us.

ANAWIM – This refers to the faithful remnant waiting for God. Mary was one of these. On the surface, hers was a very ordinary life. Except for the Visitation, she is not pictured in terms of ministry. Hers is a quiet, pondering, and prayerful presence.

And yet, her ordinary life was extraordinary in the Son that she gave to the world. He may have received from her something of his natural friendliness to women, seeing their own dignity despite the stereotypes of the law. Mary was a real woman and the disciple par excellence. She becomes the model of what it means to be a disciple of God— a believer— a woman of faith.

At Qumran Where Dead Sea Scrolls Found 

More Miscellaneous Matters

Does it really matter to what Church a person belongs as long as he does what is right?

While we must all live and believe according to the dictates of conscience, objectively speaking, if a person wants to be assured of knowing and doing what is right, he will belong to the right or true Church. The various churches are not the same. Christ directly established the Catholic Church and saving truth subsists in her.

Why are there so many sinners in the Catholic Church?

This is no truer for the Catholic community than it is for others. Christ called to himself sinners and the Catholic Church has ever been faithful in doing the same. We seek the repentance and conversion of souls. We leave ultimate judgment of the weeds and wheat to our Lord.

Cannot a person be an honest and faithful Christian without going to church?

He may on some level be a believer, but such a person is not a good Christian. The true Christian realizes that just as he is indebted to neighbors and friends, so too does he have debts before God. He was made for God. The Christian approaches God, not as an isolated individual, but as a member of a family of faith, a new People of God. It is our duty to go to Church and every Catholic is required under pain of mortal sin to participate at Sunday Mass.

Why is not fidelity to the bible sufficient for a union of faith?

The problem is that the "right meaning" of the bible must be followed for such a unity. The so-called bible churches all claim to follow the bible and yet they are divided from each other and the fragmentation continues. The union of faith mandates an infallible teacher or interpreter of the bible as well as a membership willing to submit their judgment to higher authority.

Why do Catholics believe in dogmas instead of the bible?

Catholic dogmas of faith are generally the teachings of the bible defined and elaborated upon by competent authority.

Are there not many roads leading to heaven?

Our Lord, Jesus, said that there would be one fold only-- one faith, one Church, and one God. No, there is only one road to heaven and that is the one Jesus has marked for us. Truth is not relative, especially upon this point. Christ cannot contradict himself. This gives great impetus to our missionary and evangelization campaigns. However, Catholics themselves should as St. Paul reminds us, "Be of one mind," and be configured to Christ. God certainly judges us according to what we know to be true and how we live out our faith in good conscience. The Church prays for her own and even for those outside her fold. She seeks to embrace them and save them. Who can estimate the efficacy of such intercessory prayer?

Can we believe in a Catholic Church as the true Church but not in the ROMAN Catholic Church?

No, we cannot. They are one and the same. No matter whether the rite is Western or Eastern, the head of the true Church is the bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Do we not all believe in one God?

Most, but not everyone is monotheistic. Mormon doctrine actually holds for polytheism (multiple gods). Religions from the East are also bringing pagan gods into the picture of our culture. Some believe in no god at all. Others define him in unacceptable ways. Further, we do not practice the same things that we were commanded. It should also be said that the devil knows there is one God and it does him no good.

Why do Catholics believe in teachings that are said not to be understandable?

While we do not understand the intrinsic nature of certain doctrines, we know they must be true because God who will not and cannot deceive us revealed them. Of course, there are still natural mysteries that we do not entirely comprehend, and yet, we believe and experience them as true.

Why do Catholics fail to wash one another's feet as Christ commanded in John 13:1-15?

Actually, it is done on Holy Thursday. The bishop washes the feet of twelve men. This command was not given to all, but to the apostles. It is intimately connected to the call to ministry and priesthood. Jesus did not offer this ritual as a required act for salvation, but only as a reminder of humility modeled after our Lord, himself.

Why do Catholics burn incense in church since Isaiah 1:13 says: "Incense is an abomination to me"?

God rebuked the people for their sins while offering incense to him. God himself commanded the offering of incense, but only as long as it was done with a pure heart.

If Catholics are so good then how can the Church excuse the persecution of Protestants in Spain during the Inquisition?

The civil government of Spain used religion to promote its agenda of unification and national security; the Church did not sanction the harsh treatment of Protestants. Ferdinand and Isabella established the Inquisition for more political than religious reasons. The Jews and the Moors faced the blunt of the assault. The latter group was seen as an enemy of the state. The royal officers who made up the inquisitors also persecuted bishops and priests when it suited their political aims. They imprisoned the Archbishop of Toledo for sixteen years. Repeatedly, the popes protested against the inquisition.

Did Protestants ever persecute Catholics?

Martin Luther advised his followers to kill the popes, cardinals, bishops, and all who would defend them. John Calvin unmercifully persecuted those who disagreed with his views. John Knox was so ruthless that some 17,000 so-called witches were burned in Scotland alone in the course of forty years. Knox said that people were bound in conscience to execute the queen and to kill all the priests. In England, Catholics were fined a hundred dollars a month for failing to participate at Protestant worship. Irish Catholics were imprisoned in dungeons, hanged, drawn and quartered, and faced other frightful ends because of their fidelity to the Catholic faith.

Did not the Pope approve of the killing of Protestant Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's night?

He had nothing to do with the massacre. Charles IX, manipulated by his mother, Catherine d Medicis, asassinated Admiral Coligny, the leader of the Huguenots (who were opponents of the king). This occurred on August 24, 1572 and caused escalation in violence against the Huguenots in France.

But, did not the Pope command a Te Deum be sung in France when he heard about the massacre?

After the tragedy, the King informed the Pope that he had escaped a terrible conspiracy upon his life and throne. Not knowing the true facts, the Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung. Later, when the Pope learned the true facts of the massacre, he wept for the victims and condemned the course the King had pursued.

But, did not Cardinal de Lorraine bless the poignards of the soldiers prior to the massacre?

This is a lie based upon a dramatic fiction and the propaganda of anti-Catholics. Cardinal de Lorraine was not even in France. At the time he was in Rome attending to matters of the Church.

Is it not the Galileo affair, in which he was imprisoned, proof that the Catholic Church opposes progress?

The Pope merely refused to accept proofs that Galileo offered to prove the theory that the earth moves around the sun. Galileo tried to prove it from the bible, which was impossible. Protestants and Catholics alike rejected his proofs. Nevertheless, the Church honored Cusa and Copernicus who maintained similar theories. However, they claimed as their scientific opinion, only what they could prove.

Since there is nothing in the bible about it, how can Catholics contend that St. Peter was the bishop of Rome?

Much of what we know comes from tradition. Archeological work and the evidence are that St. Peter was executed in Rome. Pious tradition and Christian lore tend to fill out the story. St. Peter started his apostolic work ten days after the ascension, about the fifteenth of May in the year 34 AD. He remained four years in Jerusalem and preached the gospel there. Afterwards, he traveled to Antioch where he remained seven years, preaching and administering Church affairs. He left Antioch and returned to Jerusalem where he was imprisoned. Miraculously delivered (Acts 12), he went and preached the gospel in Rome. He performed many miracles and the Church flourished. From that location, he began to send bishops and priests throughout the known world. After seven years, the Emperor Claudius banished him from Rome. He visited Britain, Carthage, and Alexandria and finally returned to Jerusalem. It was there that St. Paul consulted him regarding the Gentiles and the observance of circumcision (Council of Jerusalem). St. Peter decided that the Gentiles were not bound by this matter of the Mosaic law. When Emperor Claudius died, the infamous Nero succeeded him. Peter returned to Rome, just as Aquilla and Priscilla had done. Two years later, St. Paul joined Peter as a prisoner in Rome. During the 22nd year of St. Peter's Roman pontificate, Nero set the city on fire. The emperor placed the blame on the Christians and persecution ensued. St. Peter left Rome again. The 24th year, he returned and fortells his death (Acts 1:14). St. Peter and St. Paul had frustrated Simon Magus' magical arts. The two apostles were thrown into the mamertine prisons for nine months, where St. Paul composed his second letter to Timothy. They converted Process, Martinian, the keeper of the prison, and 47 prisoners. St. Peter miraculously caused water to spring forth from the prison floor in order to baptize the new converts. This well is still preserved. In the 25th year of his Roman pontificate, St. Peter and St. Paul were sentenced to death. St. Peter was crucified upon an inverted cross on Mount Janiculum (feeling unworthy to die precisely like his Lord). St. Paul was taken to the Salvia waters about four miles south of Rome and beheaded. When St. Paul's head fell under the sword, it made three bounds and a fountain is said to have sprung forth at each place where his head hit the ground. Three fountains are still venerated as the site.

More on Relics & Holy Pictures

Why do Catholics show honor to the relics of saints?

One could also ask, why does a child save his dead mother's ring? Why are the belongings of those we love sometimes treated as sacred? Why do fans collect memorabilia of their sports heroes and entertainment stars? The story is told about a very old man who insisted in his will instructions that a locket of hair and a particular handkerchief be placed in his casket. It turned out that these were the only items that he possessed from a girl who had suffered a fatal accident when he was a young man. He loved her. He still loved her. Relics, no matter whether they be something used or worn by the departed saint, or something contacted to the body after death, or even a part of the body itself, all point to the life and extraordinary discipleship of the faithful departed. They remind us that the bonds of faith are not destroyed by death. Love is stronger than death. In the case of saints, relics are tangible reminders that true holiness is possible. Relics, especially of the body, provide an intimate connection with the departed. Such relics are held in special esteem because the living bodies of Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit. The souls of the righteous live with God and one day they will rise body and soul with Christ. The Christian sees the dead body, not crudely as an empty husk, but as an element of our personhood esteemed for its past powers and consecrated by the grace of God. We treat the bodies of the faithful departed with a profound respect and reverence. Every corpse reminds us of our Savior who was brought down from his cross and laid in a tomb. We have been signed in Christ crucified. And yet, we know the promise on the other side of the cross.

Nevertheless, is it not idolatry to honor relics, even in they are parts of a person's dead body?

No, it is not idolatry. Of course, as with devotion to saints, error exists in the extremes. If one were to offer divine worship to things and persons, living or dead, then it would be idolatry and a serious sin. The Church, herself, teaches this. Rather, by honoring the friends of God, we honor God himself.

Do Catholics use relics as talismans, believing while they wear or carry them, that no evil can befall them?

This question has to be very carefully answered because we live in times when there has been a resurgence of witchcraft in naturalist and new age cults. Some of this unfortunate business is infecting our young people and entering the mainstream. It is peculiar that in our technological age and scientific culture that many of the old superstitions are reappearing, albeit in refashioned guises. Certainly, kids use to do such things as carry a rabbit's foot for good luck, although having four of them did the rabbit no good. However, what was once done in fun has taken on the pallor of a religion. While some people will wear crosses and attribute little if any meaning in the practice; others use religious symbols and items to ward off bad luck and curses. Sometimes they even commit sacrilege in pseudo-religious rituals.

I recall one time finding wax figures used in such diabolical practices, along with profane candles and statuary of the saints (dressed in strange sorcerer clothing) hidden in a church. A woman from Haiti turned out to be the culprit. She had tainted her Catholic faith with pagan superstition. This is a terrible sin and a grave offence against God.

Having offered this warning, it must be said that in Catholic circles it is held that relics might avert evil. However, the object itself has no magical power! The relic becomes an expression of our faith, just as we may voice it in words and actions. If our faith is real and actualized in charity, then God may indeed see in a relic a call for assistance. Further, the saint represented by the relic may also intercede and pray for us.

How do we know that the so-called saint is actually in heaven?

We can know it from the holy life they lived while still in the world, by the wonders and miracles he performed, and by the scrutinizing canonization process itself in the Catholic Church.

Does the bible say anything about us honoring relics?

Look at Exodus 13:19: "Moses took Joseph's bones with him; because he had adjured the children of Israel, saying, 'God shall visit you if you carry my bones from hence with you.'" Now read Acts 9:15: "In so much that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds . . . that when Peter came his shadow at least might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities." Another passage is Acts 19:12: "And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them." All this goes to prove the importance of relics, particularly when grounded in Christian faith. But how could it be any other way? Like the hemorrhaging woman, who believed that touching the mere tassel of our Lord's cloak would bring her healing, may we also use wisely the things of God.

Moving on to a related topic, why do Catholics keep holy pictures in their homes?

These images bring to mind the lives and virtues of the saint they represent. They inspire us to imitate their example.

But, if this is all it is, then why do Catholics kneel down and bow before such pictures and statues?

These representations assist our imaginations. While the custom of bowing at official engagements has been largely lost in secular greetings; it has been retained in regards to religious practice. We bend at the waist as a signed of greeting and respect to an old friend in heaven (whom the image represents). If we fall to our knees, we are actually taking a humble stance before Christ himself who has often shined ever so brightly in the lives of his saints.

Does the bible say that we are permitted to make pictures and statues in honor of the saints?

First of all, we are doing little more externally than what civil society does in putting up a statue in honor of a famous citizen or soldier. Second, there is ample precedent for such a practice in the bible. (The reason for the Hebrew reservation regarding images was because so many of the peoples around them actually worshipped false gods of stone.) We read in Exodus 25:18: "You shall make also two Cherubim of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle . . . Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory." In Numbers 21:8, we read: "And the Lord said to him: 'Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign; whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live . . . when they were bitten, looked upon it, they were healed." The brazen serpent foreshadowed (as a type) Christ and his saving cross. Honoring the Ark of the Covenant, "Joshua rent his garments and fell flat on the ground, before the ark of the Lord until evening, both he and all the ancients of Israel."

Nevertheless, how can this be reconciled with the divine prohibition, "You shall not make a picture of any other likeness . . . thou shall not adore them, nor serve them"?

Context here means everything. Otherwise, one would have to say that the Word of God contradicts itself. The invisible God of the Hebrews absolutely forbid the making of images for purposes of divine adoration. However, he did not prohibit images as such. Indeed, in the case of the ark, they were mandated. Of course, given the inclination of the early Jews to fall easily into idol worship, it is no wonder that the prohibition was often extended and made more severe.

Making a secular comparison. Many of us adorn our homes with statuary, paintings, and photographs. We have them for beauty and for sentimental reasons. Is a picture of one's child or a grandmother vain idolatry? I think not. Neither are depictions of saints and other holy personages.

More on Prayer, Fasting & Blessings

What is the prayer book from which priests and religious read?

Called the Liturgy of the Hours or the Breviary, it is one of the principal ways, along with the Mass, that the Church seeks to pray unceasingly throughout the world. Priests and religious use the Breviary as a staple in their prayer life. It is a form of prayer mandated for them and optional for the laity. It structures prayer during the day: Office of the Readings, Morning Prayer, Daytime Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Compline.

What constitutes this book?

It consists of Scripture lessons, readings from the Church fathers and saints, prayers composed by the Church, and most prominently, the psalms. The psalms are recited and chanted because they were the prayers Jesus would have known by heart and prayed daily. The psalms consecrate the Breviary as the prayer book of Christ. There are also hymns in the book. Several editions and translations exist. In the United States there is both an edited one volume and a complete four volume set.

What is the purpose?

It insures prayer and gives unity to the Church's prayer all over the world. When used by priests, it allows them to imitate Christ in rendering constant intercession for the people.

What is the origin of the Angelus prayer?

Church's would call people to prayer three times a day by ringing the church bell. This was introduced by Pope Urban II in 1095 AD to invoke Mary's protection upon the crusaders. After the conflict, it was retained as a special way to thank God three times a day for the blessings of redemption merited through Christ.

What is the Rosary?

What is it not? The Rosary is a collection of many prayers into one; and yet, it is a simple prayer, introduced by St. Dominic in the thirteenth century and highly approved by the Church. It is called the Rosary because it is composed of a series of beautiful prayers and meditations about the principal stages in Christ's life, which are strung together one after the other like a garland, in other words, like so many beautiful and fragrant roses. Christ's life is divided into the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries.

Why do Catholics repeat the same prayers in the Rosary, is it not vain repetition?

Is it vain repetition to breathe one breath after another? Does a lover ever tire of telling his beloved, "I love you?" No, there is nothing vain here. Like the angels who eternal praise God as "Holy, Holy, Holy," so we say certain holy prayers and praises over and over. The staple prayer is the HAIL MARY, sandwiched between an OUR FATHER at the beginning of each decade and closed with a GLORY BE and an optional FATIMA ASPERATION. There are five events recalled and meditated upon. The opening prayer is the APOSTLES' CREED and three OUR FATHERs (for an increase of faith, hope, and charity). The Rosary concludes with a HAIL HOLY QUEEN.

Outside the Rosary, other prayers of importance for the Catholic would be an ACT OF CONTRITION, the REGINA CAELI (substituted for the Angelus during the Easter season), GRACE BEFORE & AFTER MEALS, the STATIONS OF THE CROSS, and various novenas and litanies, etc.

Why do Catholics also do things like fast?

Actually, there is far less of it than there used to be. Fasting and abstinence (avoiding meat) was once much more strictly regulated. Unfortunately, many people have misunderstood the change regarding Friday abstinence. It was not utterly revoked. Rather, one could substitute another form of penance or mortification. Many people either did not know this or simply failed to sacrifice something else. Catholics fast because Jesus fasted (Matthew 4:12). Indeed, he told us to fast (Matthew 1:16,18). Also, St. Paul fasted (2 Corinthians 4:10) and the other apostles did so too (2 Corinthians 6:5). Good people under both the old and the new dispensation have fasted as a sacrifice to God, to firm up their discipline, and to prolong their life (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Why do Catholics abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent and are asked to render some similar penance on Fridays throughout the year?

It is not because meat is bad, but precisely because it is good. We abstain as a small sacrifice in remembrance of the death of our Lord on a Friday. Today, the Church requires that Catholics abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent. On Ash Wednesday and Good Fridays, Catholics are both to abstain from meat and to fast.

What is a blessing?

It is a holy action whereby the priest invokes the divine blessing on persons or things, just as Jesus did when he blessed children, bread, fish, and other objects.

What does the Church bless through her ministers?

The Church blesses houses, fields, persons, and about any object that can benefit people.

Why does the Church use holy water?

It is a suitable substance, reminding us of our baptism and faith, to bless people and things. It is a wonderful symbol (sacramental) to wash us from venial sin and to protect us against the evil spirit.

When do Catholics use holy water?

Catholic Christians sign themself with the water upon entering and leaving the church. They also use it at home: upon rising and retiring, before prayer time, upon going out, etc.

Why are people sometimes sprinkled with holy water at Mass?

It is because we should be cleansed and sanctified when we enter into God's house and his abiding presence there.

More on the Sacrifice of the Mass

What do Catholics mean by the sacrifice of the Mass?

A sacrifice is the oblation of a sensible thing made by God through a lawful minister by a real change in the thing offered, testifying to God's absolute authority over us and our complete dependence upon him.

Does God really want us to render sacrifice?

Yes, indeed, so much is this need ingrained in us that we find various forms of sacrifice in many world religions and in those of antiquity. It was because of a jealousy over the acceptance of a sacrifice that Cain killed Abel. Beginning with the Jews, sacrifice was properly directed toward the true God who had revealed himself. Noah, Abraham, and the Old Law enacted sacrifice to God. The sacrifices of the first people called by God would typify and foreshadow the sacrifice of the cross upon which Christ offered his body and blood to the Father for our redemption from the sin and the devil. This same sacrifice is commemorated or made sacramentally present in the Mass. It is offered to God upon our altars for the living and the dead.

Does the bible say anything about New Testament sacrifices?

The prophecy of Malachi states that the sacrifices of the old law would be abolished and supplanted by a new one offered for the entire world: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of Hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation."

Was this prophecy fulfilled?

Yes, the Jewish sacrifices have utterly ceased. The new sacrifice is the saving death of Jesus Christ, which is renewed and made present in each Mass offered every day. Around the world and in countless places it is celebrated, from the rising of the sun to its setting.

Does this mean that, according to Catholics, Jesus must suffer and die over and over again?

No, Jesus does not suffer and die all over again. Christ has risen from the dead and can never more die. As if it were a time machine, the Mass connects us with his one time passion and death-- extended to us sacramentally so as to give us the opportunity to participate and offer ourselves along with him. It is repeatedly offered to God the Father for the forgiveness of sins.

Does not this notion of repeated sacrifices clash with the warrant of New Testament testimony? After all, St. Paul states "But Christ . . . by his own blood entered into the holy of holies, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12) and later: "So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (9:28). In chapter 5:14, we read: "For by one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified." It seems to be saying that the one sacrifice on the cross was enough and no other ones are needed.

The one sacrifice of the cross is enough for our redemption. However, it must be commemorated and applied to souls, just as Jesus commanded: "Do this in remembrance of me." This is done daily in the Mass.

But if Christ has already died for our sins, and we are thus saved, why is the Mass necessary?

If all we had to do were to believe that Jesus had died for us and that we were then automatically saved, then there would be no need for the Mass. Of course, such a presumption would make preaching and the Church herself unnecessary. There would be no impetus to live a holy life. While proponents of such a view often speak a great deal about hell, it would largely make it inconsequential as well. Those who have committed the most grievous wrongs would be on the same footing as saints. However, our Lord, beside his death on the cross, has commanded other things of us if we are to be saved.

How can Catholics make such a claim of St. Paul's words to the contrary? He writes: "For it is fitting that we should have such a high priest, who need not daily (as other priests) offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for the people, for this he did once in offering himself."

The context is being confused here. He is not talking about the Mass but about Jewish sacrifices and their high priests. Because of their imperfections, their sacrifices were no longer needed. Catholic priests do not offer a new sacrifice, but the same oblation of Jesus on the cross. The words of Jesus make it a command performance.

Does St. Paul say that ministers should do more than preach; they should also render sacrifices to God for the peoples' sins?

Certainly, he says in Hebrews 5:1: "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin."

If the sacrifice of the Mass were required, it would seem to imply that the sacrifice of the cross was insufficient to reconcile us with God; is this true?

No, it is not. The sacrifice of the cross was sufficient to reconcile us with almighty God, but Christ desired that his oblation of the cross should be commemorated in "living" memory of him. As with the memorial acclamation in the revised liturgy, St. Paul says: "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). As faithful adopted sons and daughters of God, our Father, we celebrate our redemption with an unbloody sacrifice (of the cross) to God for ourselves and for the good of the world.

More on Holy Communion

What is the main difference between the Holy Communion received by Catholics and that, which is implemented by non-Catholics?

While some may contend that there is some sort of weak "spiritual" presence, most non-Catholics reduce Communion to an "empty" sign, in other words, something that signifies a presence, which is absent, namely the historical Jesus. This reduces the communion elements simply to ordinary bread and wine. Of course, without a legitimate priesthood and Eucharistic liturgy, there communion precisely such. On the other hand, Catholics believe that their Holy Communion conveys a sacramental and real presence of the risen Christ. The Eucharistic species have literally been transformed into our Lord. Possessing a valid priesthood, which celebrates a lawful Mass, the communicants eat the REAL body of Christ and drink the REAL blood of Christ.

Did Jesus really promise that he would give us his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Yes, most assuredly so. Jesus says in John 6: "The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world." His fellow Jews murmured in disagreement, seriously doubting that Jesus could do such a thing. He could not be serious, they thought. Maybe, he only meant it in a figurative fashion? Of course, even that was somewhat offensive to Jews, given their strict dietary laws. Jesus reiterates it to insure that there is no confusion: "Truly, truly I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life…. for my flesh is truly food and my blood truly drink."

Later, did Jesus fulfill his promise and give his apostles his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Again, yes. We read in Matthew 26: "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and saying: 'Take and eat. This is my body.' And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, gave it to them, saying: 'Drink of this, all of you. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.'"

Is not the fact that many denominations stress the eating and drinking a sufficient indication of their belief in the body and blood of Jesus?

No, it is not. Indeed, many deny the Catholic understanding of "real presence" while making a big deal over the fact that often Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is often reduced to the host. (Each particle of the host and every drop of the precious blood, not wine, is the complete Jesus, body and soul, humanity and divinity.) Protestants get caught up in the mechanics and deny the very essence of the sacrament. Jesus himself was concerned that his followers might go through the motions of eating and drinking the sacred meal and lose sight of the underlining reality. He says: "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Further, he tells his people: "Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." Acknowledging this truth, the apostles raised the "breaking of the bread" or Eucharist to the center of the lives.

But Christ seems to reverse himself when he says: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." How is this explained?

If it were not tragic, it would be amusing how Protestants often point to this sentence to refute the Catholic understanding of real presence. After all, it intimates that Jesus was in error or that he hastily revises his teaching when most of his followers abandon him over it. Such is far from the truth. Jesus does not suddenly suffer from amnesia regarding his earlier words, rather, he is talking about the spirit of God which makes faith possible, even in those things difficult to accept, like the graphic truth of his Eucharistic presence. Eating the flesh of Jesus without faith would profit nothing; eating it with faith gives life.

It has been offered that what Jesus meant to say at the Last Supper was, "This represents my body, this represents my blood." Is this not more correct?

It is a lie. If Jesus meant to say that the bread and wine only represented his body and blood, then he would have said so. However, he purposely said: "This is my body, this is my blood." Lacking a "to be" verb, his expression is even more stark: "This--my body, this--my blood." Some time prior to the Last Supper, our Lord promised his followers that he would give them his body and blood as food and drink. Jesus spoke plainly and made no attempt to mislead his listeners with ambiguous rhetoric. Christ's Church has believed Jesus' words in their literal sense for two thousand years. The apostles believed that the Eucharist was the real body of Christ. It is not ordinary bread. St. Paul goes so far as to emphasize that unworthy reception of this bread of life causes damnation.

How can God possibly give us his own body to eat and his blood to drink?

This question suffers from the intrusion of modern atheism, even when it emerges from fundamentalist Christians. How could God possibly take flesh at all? And yet, he did precisely this in the incarnation. How could he feed five thousand people with a mere five loaves of bread and two fishes? Nevertheless, he did. If God could change rivers into blood, as he did in Egypt, could he not transform bread and wine as a sacrament for his followers? Sure. God is almighty and can do all things. Would we be so egotistical as to hold that just because we cannot envision something as possible that it is impossible for God?

When Jesus, and today the priest, breaks the consecrated bread, is he breaking the body of Christ?

No, only the outward form of bread is broken not Christ's body.

How can the complete and living Christ be present in each and every Holy Communion around the world and often at the same time?

He is God. This mystery of the real presence of Christ cannot be explained in a way sufficient for human understanding. Nevertheless, we know with God that all things are possible. The sun in the sky can shed its light and warmth upon many places at the same time, but there is still only one sun. This is a poor analogy, and yet it might help.

How can Catholics argue such a transformation when St. Paul merely called it BREAD, saying, "Whosoever shall eat of this bread?"

The apostle emphasizes "this bread" as something more than ordinary bread. Recall that in the same chapter he complains about those who fail to discern between this bread and the ordinary variety. He warns them that to eat this bread unworthily brings down judgment, making one guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Ordinary bread could not mandate such a punishment.

While it might be granted that Jesus gave his body and blood to his apostles, is it not too great a leap to suppose that priests can give this body and blood to others?

It is no stretch of credulity at all. The apostles were commanded by Jesus to repeat what he did. He gave them his body and blood so that they might have a share in his eternal life. If this power was not handed down to the priests, how could we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood? Jesus said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth is given to me, as the Father has sent me, so I send you." The authority given the apostles is necessarily passed down to the bishops and priests.

Might the communion bread and wine be seen as a remembrance of Christ only?

No, this view is too narrow. The consecrated elements are indeed a remembrance of Christ, but they are also his body and blood. The stark words of institution make any other interpretation impossible. Further, the Hebrew view of memory is much different from our own. We tend to use remembrance in a nostalgic way, recalling something that is passed and absent. The ancients saw the past coming alive again in the telling. Remembrance makes something present, it allows one to enter into the story. Regarding the Eucharist, this is not only figuratively true, but really so. The Mass allows us to visit and participate in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Holy Communion is our encounter with our risen Lord, now made our saving food.

Can it be proven that the first Christians held such views about the Eucharist?

Yes, it can. St. Justin (150 AD) says, "The faithful receive communion not as an ordinary bread, or an ordinary drink, but we were instructed that it is the flesh and blood of Christ." St. Irenaeus (200 AD) writes regarding the Gnostic heretics, "They refuse to acknowledge that the bread in Communion is the body of their Lord and the chalice his blood." Other early authorities write similar testimonies, saying that Christ is joined with us in communion, not only through faith, but really and truly. It is said that just as water was changed into wine, so is the bread changed into the body of Christ. Others speak of adoration, an operation proper to God alone, as proper before the Blessed Sacrament. Extending back to apostolic times, this 16th century epiclesis illustrates this abiding belief: "Come, Holy Spirit, consecrate, change, transform by thy almighty power the bread and wine into the body of Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, and in the blood which was shed for our salvation." Even many of the early breakaway groups from the Catholic Church retained this central teaching in the real presence.

How could Jesus reasonably be present under the appearance of so many wafers and in so many churches at the same time?

Spatial and temporal limitations do not apply to God. We may not understand it, but Jesus, being God, is not locked exclusively into any one time or replace. Such is the mystery of Christ after his resurrection and ascension.

What proof can be put forward in favor of the claim that Jesus remains in the hosts reserved in the Church tabernacle?

We have Jesus' own words for this sacred trust. He says: "This is my body," and he makes no move to turn the sacred elements back into bread. Therefore, as long as the appearances of bread are present, so is Jesus. In addition, we know that the first Christian believers carried the consecrated bread to the sick, to prisoners, and maintained it in valuable vases for later administration to those near death. This faith of the early Church is formative to what we have always maintained.

Does the body of Christ in Holy Communion suffer from human digestion?

No, only the outward appearances are subject to change. The body of Jesus is not touched.

Does the bible say that Jesus will live in our hearts after communion?

Yes, we find the passage in St. John 6:57: "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him."

Is it permissible only to believe that Jesus is somehow present in the bread, but not that it is actually transformed into his body?

No, it is not, if one wants to remain a true Catholic. Again, Jesus said: "This is my body." We either believe in Jesus' words or we do not. If it is not really changed into his body, then Jesus was lying to us. This would be absurd.

Is it idolatry to adore the communion bread?

If it were ordinary bread, adoration would indeed be idolatrous. However, since it is the body of Jesus, it is expected and proper.

Why do so many Churches offer only the host and not the cup?

The pattern followed by the early Church is significant in that many received only the consecrated bread or only the precious blood. Further, the totality of Christ-- body and blood, soul and divinity-- is received whole and entire under either form. The practical consideration aside, which could be serious regarding excess consecrated wine, the priest's communion of both species illustrates the unity of the host and the cup.

But, are not Catholics denying a direct command of Jesus in not drinking from the cup?

It should be said that many Catholic parishes do offer the precious blood to the congregation. However, large parishes often find it difficult. After all, unlike some of the Protestant parishes, our sensibilities about the real presence would cause a just anxiety about the use of hundreds of small thimble-sized cups. While Jesus did say "unless you eat my body . . . and unless you drink my blood," however, he also said in the same chapter: "If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever . . . the bread which I shall give you is my flesh for the life of the world." Clearly, this means that eating this bread will give us a share in eternal life. This is elaborated by St. Paul: "He who eats this bread or drinks this chalice unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).

Is not every baptized believer a priest who can celebrate the Lord's Supper?

No, baptismal priesthood and ministerial priesthood are quite different. The laity cannot consecrate the bread and wine. Only the apostles were commanded to do this by Jesus. Consequently, only their successors, the bishops and priests at Mass are able to consecrate the bread and wine in the name of the people. As St. Paul tells us, the ministers are chosen by God to offer sacrifices for the people (Hebrews 5:1).

What are some of the practical reasons why the cup might not be offered?

1. The apostles themselves could not always administer it to the sick or imprisoned.
2. The danger of spillage is a real concern.
3. There is a great aversion to drinking from the same cup, especially with the sick.
4. Some places have difficulty procuring and preserving wine.
5. Alcoholics and certain others cannot drink it.
6. Because Jesus gave the Church authority to regulate such matters.

More on Indulgences

What exactly are the eternal punishments due to sins?

When we speak of eternal punishment, we are referring to the everlasting pains of hell.

What then are the temporal punishments due to sin?

Punishments, which take place in the temporal realm or in time, are basically the ills and struggles of mortal life. We all know sickness and dying. We experience loss and grieving. We face man's inhumanity to man as well as natural disaster. The pains of purgatory would also be added to this list.

In what ways are the temporal punishments due to sin forgiven?

There are many ways, including penance, prayer, good works, and indulgences.

Can it really be shown that Jesus gave his apostles the power to grant indulgences or to remit the temporal punishment due to sin?

Yes, this power is found in the sacred charge given Peter by Jesus: "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). The authority is given to Peter from Christ to remit whatever it is that hinders people from the gate of heaven.

Is it lawful for the Catholic Church to charge money for granting indulgences?

No, it is not. Such trafficking in indulgences is an abuse that has always been condemned by the Church.

But, did not the Pope charge money for the indulgences sold to help build St. Peter's in Rome?

The charge behind this question is a gross distortion of the facts. The conditions placed upon those desiring such an indulgence were clearly enumerated: they were first to make a good confession, and only then as an act of penance, they might offer some money to the building of the great church. However, no one was obliged to make this payment, as there were many other ways to have temporal punishment forgiven.

Wait a minute, how can this be true? The Dominican monk, Tetzel, told the crowds that the payment of a dollar could gain an indulgence of past and even of future sins.

Well, if the monk really said this, then he was sorely mistaken. Such behavior would have been I contradiction to Church teaching. Reputable authorities give a different picture of Tetzel. Indeed, in 1517, he published a thesis upon the subject wherein he writes that to gain an indulgence there must be sorrow for sin, a good confession, holy communion, fasting, and church visitation. He also writes that the indulgence does not forgive sins, but only the temporal punishments of past sins, and not of future sins.

Why does God not forgive sins directly, without priestly and papal mediation?

Such is well within the prerogatives of God; however, he wisely created the ministry of priests. First, the priest functions in Christ's name and corrects the sinner from his evil ways. Second, the priest imposes a penance upon the sinner, just as our Lord would do if he still visibly walked the earth. Third, the encounter with a minister of the Church amplifies the certainty of God's friendship and mercy; one does not have to endure a life of uncertainty about the forgiveness of one's sins.

Could it be that indulgences might forgive the temporal punishments imposed by the Church, but not those put into place by God?

No, the authority here is absolute. "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." This power granted the Church through Peter makes no distinctions.

What does the term "treasury of the merits of the Church" mean?

This has to do with the infinite merits of Christ, the "superabundant merits" of the Virgin Mary and those of the saints. Our Lord gave the Church the power to distribute these merits to penitent sinners and to remit to them the temporal punishments due to sin.

Will not people abandon a spirit of penance if they see that temporal punishments can be forgiven easily?

No, because to gain an indulgence, such a contrite heart, free from sin, and averse to evil inclinations, must be present. Such a disposition can quite easily shorten the time of penance.

More on the Baptism of Children

Why do we baptize children?

"Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5). Neither gender nor age is specified in this passage, despite the rendering of this English translation. Such a fact is important because the suggestion that this passage is a repudiation of infant baptism would be far from the mark. Indeed, given the necessity of baptism, it would point to the latter. Nevertheless, accepting that the passage is addressed to those who have reached the age of reason, we can explore what it means, "to be born again." Just as we receive biological life in the womb, so too can we receive supernatural life from the womb of Mother Church; the water of the baptismal font; and the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that adults need to be taught and to accept the faith prior to baptism. Jesus says as much in his commission to spread the Gospel: "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." However, in reference to children, the faith of parents and the believing community suffices. St. Paul was converted by God's grace at a time when he did not believe in Christ and persecuted the Church. St. John the Baptizer was sanctified prior to his martyrdom, even though he knew little about the faith of Christ. Precedent for such an early initiation into the People of God can be found in the practice of the Jews, the first people called forth. Almighty God can wash children clean of original sin and give them a share in divine life, just as he presumed faith in the Jewish children circumcised on the eighth day as a step toward justification. Jesus would have none hinder the baptism of children. He said: "Suffer these little ones to come to me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." While something of God's mercy toward children who die while still in their innocence might be implied here, the main point is the inclusivity of God's kingdom and Church. The gravity of baptism should not be dismissed. Jesus tells us that unless one be born again of the water and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do we actually believe that a little baby is infected by the sin of Adam and Eve and has consequently forfeited supernatural life?

Well, the Scriptures speak for themselves. St. Paul tells us: "By one man sin entered this world and by sin death, and so death passed on all men, in whom all have sinned . . . and for as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one, many were made just" (Romans 5:19). He also states: "And if one died for all, then all were dead, and Christ died for all" (1 Corinthians 5:14). As a testimony from the Old Testament, we read in Psalm 50: "In sin did my mother conceive me." Returning to Paul, he tells the Ephesians: "We were by nature children of wrath." Original sin afflicts us, even upon the very day of our conception. Baptism restores supernatural life through Jesus Christ. As for happens to a child who dies prior to baptism, we can take consolation in the fact that God's justice to every soul is perfect and accompanied by a boundless mercy.

Does the Bible actually teach that all sins are forgiven by baptism and that a new life is given us?

St. Paul says: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). This is prefigured in Exechiel 36:25 when God states: "And I will pour upon you a clean water and you shall be cleansed from all your iniquities." As for regeneration, we read in Galatians: "For you are all children of God . . . For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." There can be no doubt about it in Titus 3:5,7: "God saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation [re-creation] of the Holy Spirit, whom he has poured forth on us abundantly . . . that we may be heirs of life everlasting."

Is there any evidence of the Apostles baptizing children?

Yes, they baptized whole households. We read in Acts 10:48 that they baptized the household of Cornelius and in Acts 6:15 that of Lydia. Also do not forget Paul's reception by Stephana, keeper of the prison. It is most probable that there were children in his home, too.

Were children baptized in the early post-Apostolic period?

Early authorities like Origen, Cyprian, and St. Augustine make clear that the baptism of children as soon as possible constituted a tradition handed down by the apostles themselves. The reasoning was that divine grace should not be withheld from anyone.

Is it wrong to presume faith in a small child or infant?

No, just as a child can be made an heir of earthly property, long before they have the faculty of consenting to receive it, so too in baptism, infants can be made heirs of heaven.

More on Purgatory & Election

Does the bible say anything about purgatory?

The word as such is not mentioned; however, it does say that we should pray for the dead: "It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (2 Maccabees 12). Obviously the souls in heaven do not require our prayers and the dead in hell are beyond redemption. It must mean the dead in a purgative condition.

What is purgatory?

It is a state where certain souls go to suffer for a while, having died with unremitted venial sins or with temporal punishment for sin yet to be expiated. When they have satisfied divine justice, they will be delivered into heaven.

Is this something the early Christians believed?

Uniform prayers for the dead were promulgated by counciliar decree in 253 AD. Later councils of the Church in 579 AD, in 827 AD, and at Trent, urged people to pray for the dead. This is ample evidence that the first Christians believed in a state of atonement after this life.

But do not some question the authenticity of Maccabees?

Protestant reformers removed it about five hundred years ago. However, the Catholic Church from the earliest days had approved it as canonical and authentic.

But its author apologizes for its errors?

Yes, but he meant errors in style, not in doctrine.

Are there any other proofs for purgatory?

We read in the book of Revelation: "And there shall not enter heaven anything defiled." If nothing defiled can enter heaven, then it would seem that the millions upon millions who die in the venial sins are eternally lost. That is, they are lost unless there is a purgatory to offer final and complete spiritual healing. It is also written that God will render to each of us according to his works and that an accounting will be required for every idle word spoken. Many die with small faults in word and action; certainly a good God will not damn them eternally for minor transgressions. Purgatory will be the place of the atonement for little imperfections.

But, in light of Ephesians 1:7: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleansed us from all sin," is not purgatory unnecessary?

Such an interpretation would eliminate the necessity for hell, too. Christ cleanses us from sin, as long as we use the means he has prescribed. If we neglect them, we will incur suffering because God rewards and punishes each of us according to our works.

The bible asserts "Wherever the tree falls there it will lie"; thus, there is no other condition than that in heaven and hell, right?

Wrong, this would reduce to insignificance the justice of God. The text can only be used within this context in reference to our final orientation, toward heaven or hell. Every soul is destined for heaven, IF we accept and make sufficient use of the grace God gives us (see 2 Peter 3:9; Wisdom 11:27; Ezekiel 31:11; 1 Timothy 2:4).

But does not the bible say that some people are predestined for heaven?

Certainly we all hope to be numbered among the elect. Some, like the apostles, martyrs, and other saints reveal such predestination by lives of extraordinary faith and loving witness to the Gospel. St. Augustine would talk about this mystery as a predestination to glory. This is quite different from the Calvinistic view that sees signs of election (being saved) in our status and worldly success. Such a view would insinuate that the poor are abandoned, even by God. This notion is utterly reprehensible. God gives sufficient grace to all men and women to be saved. What we need is faith and cooperation in that grace.

Is it just to damn someone for all eternity?

The souls in hell chose by their own free will and understanding the bondage to sin over the freedom of the children of God. Like the fallen angels before them, they will never again change their minds and hearts. God will not drag a soul by force into heaven. We cannot know all the reasons why such souls were created in the first place; however, beyond this mystery, the affirmation of God's justice and its support to Christian morality cannot be underestimated.

More on Mary & the Saints

Is it not wrong to honor saints and angels since the bible says, "You shall adore the Lord your God, and him alone you shall serve"?

Certain critics misinterpret Catholic teaching on this matter. Catholics adore God alone. He is the one we serve. The honor we show the saints is of a secondary order. It is no more an offense against God than the honor and respect we show our parents and friends.

How can Catholics rationalize such an attitude given the clear Scriptural prohibitions, as in Isaiah 42:8, "My honor I shall give to no other"?

There is no deep rationalization here, only common sense and courtesy. Of course, the mindset of those who have refashioned Christianity into a privatized sect, seeking a direct link with Christ while ignoring any semblance of a family of faith-- living and dead-- would have a hard time appreciating the communion of saints. As I said before, the highest honor and adoration goes to God alone; however, the very fact that we have natural bonds (with blood kin) and supernatural ones (in the family of the Church) demands some level of respect and affection.

What is the difference between showing honor and adoration?

Adoration is the term we properly use regarding the highest honor we show and this is directed to God. We recognize his Lordship over all creation. By honoring angels and saints we give glory to God who has worked wondrous deeds and has instilled divine virtues in them.

Does the bible say that we should honor angels?

Most certainly, it does. Three angels appeared to Abraham. His response was to bow his face to the ground and to honor them (Genesis 18:2; 19:1). Similarly, Joshua raised his eyes and saw what he at first took to be a man, standing over against him, holding a drawn sword and proclaiming, "I am a prince of the hosts of the Lord . . ." (Joshua 5:15). We read in Exodus 23:20, God saying: "Behold, I will send my angels who shall go before you. Take notice of him, and hear his voice and do not think him one condemned."

But, does not St. Paul say, "To God alone is due honor and praise"?

The apostle means that the highest honor and praise is reserved to God. Note what he says in Romans 12:10, "With honor meet each other."

What does it really mean to pray to saints?

It is a particular kind of prayer. Ultimately, it is a prayer of supplication that finds its ultimate source in God, himself. We are asking the saints to pray for us. Our prayers of adoration are reserved to God, all glory and praise is his.

Does the bible say it is permissible to ask the saints to pray for us?

Yes, it does. The bible tells us that there is a real value in requesting the prayers of people on earth and the prayers of the angels in heaven. This being the case, it is only logical that the saints, who reign with Christ in heaven and who are still a part of our family of faith, can pray and intercede for us. St. Paul makes this request: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Spirit, that you help me in your prayers for me to God" (Romans 15:30). He said similar things in Ephesians 6:18 and Thessalonians 5:25.

Does the bible say anything about angels and saints praying for people who walk the earth?

There is evidence for this. Zechariah 1:12 documents an angel praying for the Jewish people: "Lord of hosts, how long will you not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah against which you are angry." God heard and responded to the angel's prayer, saying: "You have spoken good words, consoling words . . . I will have mercy on Jerusalem." Note these words from the chief apostle: "And I will do my endeavor that after my death also you may often have prayers whereby you may keep a memory of these things." St. Peter wished to pray for his friends even after his death. The clincher that the saints pray for us is in the Book of Revelation where St. John saw four and twenty ancients "who fell down before the lamb and all had harps and golden vials full of odors which are the prayers of the saints."

But how can angels and saints be mediators when St. Paul tells us that "There is only one mediator between God and man," and his name is Jesus Christ?

Jesus is our Mediator. However, this does not rule out secondary intercessors who are assisted and used by Christ. Remember, St. Paul, himself, asked for prayers from his brethren.

Why not pray to God in a direct way, according to the fashion that Jesus taught us?

There are many instances where we do pray directly to God. However, we acknowledge that we do not come to God alone. Just as God called to himself a People of God in the Jewish nation, so too he summons a new people in the Church. We pray with and for one another. Death is no barrier to this solidarity. We beckon the saints to pray for our needs. There is a great humility in this form of prayer. We recognize our unworthiness and ask the saints to obtain for us that which may be just out of our grasp. Both prayer forms are recommended.

But if the dead are either asleep or too far off to hear us, then what use are our petitions?

The saints know rest in the Lord, but this does not mean that they have been relegated, even temporarily, to oblivion. Further, the ties that bind us, particularly our faith and love in Christ, transcend the barrier of death. There is a legitimate mystery here and yet we trust the Word of God, which testifies that angels and saints do, indeed, hear us. "There shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance" (Luke 15:10). The saints have joined the angels of heaven. They hear our voices.

But does not Jeremiah 17:5 say, "Cursed he who places his trust in man"?

The prophet only meant that trust in men should not displace trust in God. Note that God himself told us to observe and trust his angel (Exodus 23).

Do not Catholics go too far in calling various saints "our hope, our mercy," etc.?

These are merely signs of affection and thankfulness to our special friends among the saints. Such expressions should not be interpreted crudely as denying the singular place of God and his operation in our lives.

Why do Catholics pay special and heightened honor to the Virgin Mary?

• She was chosen by God to be the Mother of our Savior. Should we not honor the mother of the one who has saved the world? Sure.
• The appearance and the words of the angel honored Mary with titles befitting her dignity: "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women." Is it right to the echo the salutation of a heavenly messenger? Certainly.
• Jesus desired that we take notice of his mother and honor her, saying to John from the cross, "See your mother." Are we obliged to carry out the last words of crucified Lord? Without question, this is the case.
• The first Christians honored Mary with a most intense and intimate love. Should we do the same as brothers and sisters to Christ, adopted children of the Father, and spiritual children to Mary? Yes, the pattern and connection is clear.
• After God himself, Mary is the most perfect model of purity, justice, and holiness for us to imitate. If Mary is the queen of the saints, then is her spiritual perfection worthy of imitation? Quite so.
• Those who have honored her have been wondrously rewarded by God; the lame walked, the blind regain their sight, the sick recovered, etc. Practically speaking, would we be fools to ignore such a person and the incredible way that God continues to use her? In many ways, the miracles and messages attributed to her remind us that God is still very much aware and concerned about our plight.

Again, does it not defame God to give so much honor to a mere creature?

This honor we show her does not degrade God in the least. As a matter of fact, the respect and veneration we show Mary pleases God. We give glory to God in honoring the woman who was so wonderfully made free from sin and who said YES to God for all humanity.

Did the Virgin Mary have other children besides Jesus?

No, the bible calls her a "virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph . . . and the virgin's name was Mary." The Scriptures also tell us that she remained a virgin up to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Her perpetual virginity was an accepted fact in the early Church community, taught by the Nicene Creed and the early fathers as "the glorious EVER virgin Mary."

But does this conflict with what the evangelist actually says, that "Joseph . . . knew her not till she brought forth her first born son"?

There is no conflict, just a problem with language and translation. The wording, "not till," does not mean that her virginity ended at that point or some time after. It merely stresses again that Jesus was specially conceived by divine intervention. As a sacred vessel for the presence of God, Joseph would do nothing to defile her. After the birth of Christ, and knowing full well the identity of his foster Son, Joseph and Mary lived a virginal marriage. The language here shares some similarity with Genesis 8:7: "The raven went forth from the ark and did not return TILL the waters dried up." The raven did not return at all. As with the virginity of Mary, it was a perpetual status. The same expression is used in 1 Kings 15:30.

But if Jesus is called Mary's FIRST BORN, does not this readily imply other children?

No, and again, language is a serious issue in biblical interpretation. The term "First born" was applied to the FIRST BORN of every Jewish woman, regardless of whether other children followed. A case in point is Joshua 17:1. The frequent mention of the brethren of Jesus finds several reliable explanations. There is evidence that in some cases it refers to cousins (especially when a woman other than Mary is mentioned as their mother) and in other instances it may simply be an extension of referring to his followers as his brethren.

Does the bible say that Mary was always free from original sin?

We read in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed. He shall crush your head." The seed is interpreted as Christ Jesus, the woman is the Virgin Mary, and the serpent is Satan. Certain older Catholic renditions translated the last line here as "She shall crush your head." Thus, in statuary and other imagery, she is often envisioned stepping upon a serpent. This translation peculiarity is fortuitous in that modern scholarship tells us that a more exact rendering would be, "They [all the descendants of the woman] will strike at your head." The Mother of the Redeemer is now the Mother of the Redeemed. She is the image and model of the Church. They enmity between her sons and daughters against those in league with the devil is a perpetual one. Such an interpretation would not admit to even a momentary moment of reconciliation. She has always been, and always will be, the one made holy by Christ's saving grace-- a favor which reached from the cross backwards through history, to the very moment of her conception-- all so that the divine and all-holy one might pass through a sinless vessel. The angel's salutation affirms this truth, "hail full of grace." There is no space or vacuum in her for sin. The angel continues, "blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:26,33). The holiness of Mary distinguishes from all other women.

Are there any other reasons that might prove that Mary was free from original sin?

• It would have been unbecoming of an infinitely pure God to be incarnated in a woman who was or had been under the dominion of sin, even if just for a moment.
• Christ takes his flesh from the flesh of Mary; as God and as untouched by sin, he could not assume a sinful flesh.
• The Holy Spirit has guided the Church on this matter and thus it can be trusted.
• Mary appeared at Lourdes in France and declared herself the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. As verification of this message, healing water sprung mysteriously from the ground and as a lasting testimony thousands have been cured by it from all kinds of diseases.